Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2019,2602
EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08 (https://dejure.org/2019,2602)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.02.2019 - 25253/08 (https://dejure.org/2019,2602)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Februar 2019 - 25253/08 (https://dejure.org/2019,2602)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,2602) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RUSEN BAYAR v. TURKEY

    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

    DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08
    At this point, the Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 82, ECHR 2015 and the references therein) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 116, 1 April 2010; and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

    DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08
    At this point, the Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 82, ECHR 2015 and the references therein) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 116, 1 April 2010; and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

    PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08
    At this point, the Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 82, ECHR 2015 and the references therein) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 116, 1 April 2010; and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

    ERKAPIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08
    At this point, the Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 82, ECHR 2015 and the references therein) and that in determining Convention rights one must frequently look beyond appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, inter alia, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 116, 1 April 2010; and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 34804/14

    GORAN KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08
    Thus, it can be inferred from the foregoing that what constitutes a valid waiver of a right under Article 6 of the Convention cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule, but must depend on the circumstance of the particular case (see Simeonovi, cited above, § 113, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, §§ 250-1, ECHR 2016; and see for a similar approach Goran Kovacevic v. Croatia, no. 34804/14, § 75, 12 April 2018).
  • EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

    YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08
    As to the applicant's conduct, the Court reiterates its well-established case-law to the effect that an applicant cannot be criticised for having made full use of the remedies available under domestic law in the defence of his interests (see Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, § 50, 24 September 2009, and Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66) unless and in so far as they are solely aimed at the deliberate obstruction of the proceedings.
  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
  • EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

    KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08
    Referring to Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria (no. 50963/99, 20 June 2002) and Kerechashvili v. Georgia ((dec.), no. 5667/02, ECHR 2006-V), the Government argued that such a failure to inform the Court of a fact which is essential for the examination of the present case is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided by Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08
    The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the other paragraphs has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Convention institutions (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012).
  • EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 66580/12

    BIVOLARU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08
    Furthermore, the case was before the trial court for almost five years and two months, pending an initial judgment (Bivolaru v. Romania (no. 2), no. 66580/12, § 155, 2 October 2018.
  • EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 227/13

    KOCAMIS AND KURT v. TURKEY

    The Court notes that similar complaints have already led to findings of violation under Article 5 § 4 in many cases against Turkey for failure to respect the principle of equality of arms (see, for example, Altinok, cited above, §§ 57-61; Çatal v. Turkey, no. 26808/08, § 44, 17 April 2012; Adem Serkan Gündogdu, cited above, § 49; and Rusen Bayar v. Turkey, no. 25253/08, §§ 73-74, 19 February 2019).

    Regarding the possibility of claiming compensation for those violations, the Court has already found that Article 141 of the CCP did not provide for the possibility of seeking compensation for damage suffered as a result of procedural deficiencies in the proceedings brought to challenge pre-trial detention (see Altinok, cited above, §§ 66-69; Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey, no. 15048/09, § 93, 28 October 2014; and Rusen Bayar v. Turkey, no. 25253/08, § 82, 19 February 2019).

  • EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 10613/10

    EKREM CAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    The relevant domestic law (as in force at the material time), as well as the case-law of the Constitutional Court regarding the issue of waiver of the right to a lawyer, may be found in Rusen Bayar v. Turkey, (no. 25253/08, §§ 41-46, 19 February 2019).

    The Court has already found in cases against Turkey that the validity of a waiver of the right to legal assistance during police custody cannot be shown by mere reference to the documents that an applicant signed while in police custody where that applicant (i) after being granted access to a lawyer neither admitted his or her guilt nor maintained statements that he or she had made to the police before being granted access to that lawyer, and (ii) consistently repudiated the self-incriminatory police statements throughout the ensuing proceedings, in which he or she was represented by a lawyer (see Akdag v. Turkey, no. 75460/10, §§ 48-61, 17 September 2019, and Rusen Bayar v. Turkey, no. 25253/08, §§ 113-123, 19 February 2019 with further references).

  • EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 8211/10

    CANLI v. TURKEY

    RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 21. The relevant domestic law in force at the material time, as well as case-law of the Constitutional Court on the issue of waiver of the right to a lawyer, may be found in Rusen Bayar v. Turkey, (no. 25253/08, §§ 41-6, 19 February 2019).

    Thus, it can be inferred from the foregoing that what constitutes a valid waiver of a right under Article 6 of the Convention cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule, but must depend on the circumstance of the particular case (see Simeonovi, cited above, § 113; Ibrahim and Others, cited above, §§ 250-51, ECHR 2016; and Rusen Bayar v. Turkey, no. 25253/08, § 121, 19 February 2019).

  • EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32043/11

    ORAL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    The general principles concerning the validity of the waiver of the right to a lawyer have been summarised in Simeonovi v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 21980/04, §§ 122-144, 12 May 2017) and Rusen Bayar v. Turkey (no. 25253/08, §§ 113-123, 19 February 2019).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht